Author: Mark Young
Date: 11:49:45 04/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 15, 2002 at 13:48:29, Roy Eassa wrote: >On April 15, 2002 at 12:52:33, Mark Young wrote: > >>On April 15, 2002 at 12:49:59, Chris Carson wrote: >> >>>On April 15, 2002 at 11:52:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On April 15, 2002 at 08:56:27, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 15, 2002 at 08:17:04, Claudio A. Amorim wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>So, are these the programs supposed to play at a 2700 level? Sure, they win many >>>>>>games against strong humans, but... Where is their chess competency? Shredder´s >>>>>>errors against Smirin were so elementary that they would not fit well in a >>>>>>strong club player´s blitz game. >>>>> >>>>>Let's not go crazy over ONE game! we need to ask these questions after the >>>>>match, also you can not say "So, are these the programs supposed to play at a >>>>>2700 level?" when this is a games based on one programs performance! >>>>>Other than that i agree, it was not pretty... >>>>> >>>>>Regards >>>>>Jonas >>>> >>>> >>>>I think the thing that troubles _some_ of us greatly is this question: >>>> >>>>"Can you name any GM that would play a single game that looks as bad as >>>> that one?" >>> >>>Kasparov (2800+) vs DBII the final game. >> > >>Yes, that one must be the best of all. Really a awful game by the best GM of our >>age. > > >Is it safe to conclude from ONE very bad move by Kasparov (playing a known line >with the wrong order of moves, and after which he was LOST) that the following >is true: > >"Computers are definitely stronger chess players than any human will ever be, >and anybody who thinks differently is a fool." > >It is statements to that effect that many wish to provide significant >counter-evidence. Noting yesterday's game, in which Shredder was clueless move >after move after move, is one bit of said counterevidence. There is quite a bit >more. That is Shredder....If the other 3 computer all have the same problem then you have a case to make....Lets see what Shredder does with white and the other 3 computers can do. What if the computers win the match again, the Shredder game still stands as a loss. What does that say about the human player, or the computer programs. You can not say anything from one game...The computers have already shown they are GM's many times over...it can not be erased by one loss. The computers will lose many games, but they win 2 to 1 against the GM players...Computers are beatable, but the GM's have shown to be more beatable for the computers. Nothing has changed as of yet. > > >> >>> >>>> >>>>Of course, questions like "OK, how can a program play like a 2600+ in one game >>>> then play like a 1900- in another game?" and that _is_ a good question. But >>>>as the old proverb goes, "the chain is only as strong as its weakest link." IE >>>>Smirin could lose the remainder of the games (not likely of course) and it would >>>>_still_ be difficult to call this a "GM performance" after a game like that... >>>> >>>>GMs do have bad days. But not _that_ bad. It perfectly highlighted just how >>>>weakly programs evaluate king-safety. _all_ programs...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.